| ▲ | jack_pp 13 hours ago |
| Rabbi Haim once ascended to the firmaments to see the difference between the worlds. He first visited Gehenna (Hell). He saw a vast hall with long tables covered in the most magnificent foods. But the people sitting there were skeletal and wailing in agony. As the Rabbi looked closer, he saw that every person had wooden slats splinted to their arms, stretching from their shoulders to their wrists. Their arms were perfectly straight and stiff; they could pick up a spoon, but they could not bend their elbows to bring the food to their own mouths. They sat in front of a feast, starving in bitterness. The Rabbi then visited Gan Eden (Heaven). To his surprise, he saw the exact same hall, the same tables, and the same magnificent food. Even more shocking, the people there also had wooden slats splinted to their arms, keeping them from bending their elbows.
But here, the hall was filled with laughter and song. The people were well-fed and glowing. As the Rabbi watched, he saw a man fill his spoon and reach across the table, placing the food into the mouth of the man sitting opposite him. That man, in turn, filled his spoon and fed his friend. The Rabbi returned to Hell and whispered to one of the starving men, "You do not have to starve! Reach across and feed your neighbor, and he will feed you."
The man in Hell looked at him with spite and replied, "What? You expect me to feed that fool across from me? I would rather starve than give him the pleasure of a full belly!" |
|
| ▲ | treetalker 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The Judeo–Christian God really has a thing for attaching people to wood. |
| |
| ▲ | embedding-shape 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Long time ago I did my confirmation (ex-protestant), but I seem to recall that wood is used a lot because it's a symbolism to man's mortality and frailty. Then after/with the crucifixion it also became a symbol of sacrifice and redemption in connection to mortality and frailty. But someone who remembers their studies better might offer a better explanation to why it's so popular. | | |
| ▲ | huhkerrf 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trees are big in the Torah and Bible generally. The Bible Project did a whole series on trees in the Bible. You've got the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the cross, the tree in the book of Jonah, the fig tree, the parable of the vine and the branches, etc.. It all makes sense for a religion steeped in a desert culture. Trees are (relatively) rare, and what they offer is incredibly important and life giving. | | |
| ▲ | gherkinnn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In Norse mythology the first man Ask was carved out of a piece of ash tree and the first woman Embla out of a piece of elm. Ash is a good choice for tool handles and elm for constructing homes. | |
| ▲ | colechristensen 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Trees are big in all sorts of mythologies. Primates like trees. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Humor aside, to appreciate these recurring themes, if you will, requires knowledge of, e.g., typology. Here, the cross with Christ nailed to it is transfigured into the new Tree of Life. Other important typologies are Christ as the new Adam, Mary as the new Eve, and Mary through her womb as the new Ark of the New Covenant. Noah's ark and the Ark of the Covenant are not called arks coincidentally, either. And the Church is often called the Barque of Peter. | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | znnajdla 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | barbazoo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hell is only hell because of the people in it. I like the idea of being among likespirited people in the afterlife. |
|
| ▲ | PlatoIsADisease 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is somewhat a variant of the cooperate situation in the prisoners dilemma. I find it interesting to dress it up in religion, because the optimal situation is to defect, and if everyone knows the game, you get a worse outcome. Religion can cause people to be selfless and you get a better outcome for most people. I've always thought to teach people religion, but defect yourself. In a modern secular world, teach everyone ascetic stoicism. Myself, follow some sort of Machiavellian/Nietzsche/hedonism. |
| |
| ▲ | vacuity 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The optimal decision in the Prisoner's Dilemma is to defect, but in the iterated version, where multiple Dilemmas occur and people remember previous results, Tit-For-Tat is optimal. The real world is even less reminiscent of the Dilemma, so it's not at all clear that the Dilemma's conclusion applies. (Tit-For-Tat: Prefer cooperating, but if the other person defected on the previous turn, defect on the current turn.) | |
| ▲ | AIorNot 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Ignoring myth and belief differences The purpose of the article and the story above was simple - you and I are the same ultimately The golden rule is just that- when we recognize ourselves in others we act to minimize pain in others as we would to ourselves Imagine the world as a one person play with each role played by the same person but in different costumes: you | | |
| ▲ | exe34 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I found it very hard to apply the golden rule as someone who was abused as a child. I don't care how I'm treated, so I can treat you in any way, however cruel. By accident I discovered that if instead of imagining how you would feel if I did this bad thing to you, I imagined how the one person I loved would feel. Suddenly I had a working version of empathy, which I use to this day. I don't treat others as I would want to be treated - I treat them as I would want them to treat my loved one. | | |
| ▲ | vacuity 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I do not know your circumstances, but see what you think of this: I have a nascent theory about human feelings, which goes that the basic feelings we experience are usually perceived through extensive filtering by our personal, social, cultural, etc., beliefs/experiences. The convincing conscious perception of a feeling may be misinterpreted to an extent. Anger is an emotion that can often become misdirected. Supposedly, sexual arousal can be interpreted in translation from fear[0]. Someone who is suicidal may consider suicide seriously, but feel an urge to live in the process of suicide. Circumstance may make certain feelings clear, but by examining removed from circumstance, the person had the capacity for both feelings. There is some "essence" to the person that those feelings, brought on by circumstance, only scratch the surface of. Observing a narrow range of circumstances and assuming it is the essence is a mistake. I think that more or less every person, in their essence, understands human decency. It may be that some people truly don't have the capacity to appreciate it (thought: aliens?), but usually, I think the real culprit is learned behavior through various factors, and innate cognitive biases. I don't mean to say that it is easy to change people, because the opposite is generally true, but I think it is worth thinking about. That said, if there was someone who truly needed to, say, murder the way we need to eat, I say that they would do no wrong by murdering, but that we would do no wrong by apprehending them. I wish to get to people at their essences, not their accidents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattribution_of_arousal | | |
| ▲ | exe34 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 100%, our emotions have two components: the initial feeling and the thought-derived reaction. It's like when a toddler falls over and looks back at the mother to decide whether or not it was hurt badly enough that it needs to cry. the Stoics taught this over 2000 years ago. it is not what happens but how we categorise it that matters. |
| |
| ▲ | thisislife2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Felt bad hearing about your childhood but am really glad you found a way to get past it to start trusting people again. It must have been a difficult process for you but I am glad you shared your worldview with us - I find it more "selfless" than the golden rule. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you're a liar and degenerate psychopath. |
|
|
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | CrimsonRain 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| thank you for sharing |
|
| ▲ | testing22321 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I can’t help thinking this applies to universal healthcare in the US. It would be cheaper and get better outcomes, but is still opposed because “working together is socialism” Meta: downvotes to prove my point. |
| |
| ▲ | mionhe 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US. Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human. | | |
| ▲ | E39M5S62 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Universal healthcare is real and human. If we can't use an article to inform how we think about current problems, what's the point of it? | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But the parent wasn't doing that. He was just taking the opportunity to dunk on his outgroup, by insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others (which you will see is patently untrue if you actually get to know those people, but I digress). If the parent had instead chosen to give a thoughtful response focusing more on a positive message (say, exploring how we should do more to help others and how universal healthcare can be a facet of that), that would've been fine. But yet another post of "my outgroup is evil" doesn't teach us anything or lead to good discussion. | | |
| ▲ | testing22321 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others Please educate me. What possible reason is there to oppose universal healthcare? Please keep in mind that factually it’s cheaper and results in better outcomes in every developed country in the world. | | |
| ▲ | noitpmeder 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | "please convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I have a very strongly held opinion that I consider to be an unshakeable fact, and by the way I'm asking you for evidence while providing none of my own. But it's a fact." |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The fact you think a basic human right is politics shows how much of a problem it is. Developed countries don’t do that. |
|
|